Evolution - February 1999: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1281

Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Friday, February 5 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1281

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 06:46:47 -0700
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1279

The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org

Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Wednesday, February 3 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1279

Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 22:11:51 -0800
From: Deborah Chory <chorydb@erols.com>
Subject: discussion group?

I was trying to find something on whale evolution rather something to
discuss at work concerning this topic. I am a reformed believer who has
a ministry of sorts at the Smithsonian, Natural History Museum. I am
not a researcher but a technician who is presently in the Paleontology
Lab making padded, plaster storage and shipping jackets for fossil
whales. The primary thrust of this museum is the advancement
evolutionary doctrine. Is this discussion group still ongoing ? If so
I would like to participate. Thanks,

Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:02:00 -0700
From: PostMaster <Mailer-Daemon@navyouth.org>
Subject: Message Not Delivered: evolution-digest V1 #1280

The message you sent could not be sent to the following recipient(s):
SMTP:bgmsm@navyouth.org

Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Thursday, February 4 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1280

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 10:33:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Loren Haarsma <lhaarsma@retina.anatomy.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: discussion group?

> I was trying to find something on whale evolution rather something to
> discuss at work concerning this topic. I am a reformed believer who has
> a ministry of sorts at the Smithsonian, Natural History Museum. I am
> not a researcher but a technician who is presently in the Paleontology
> Lab making padded, plaster storage and shipping jackets for fossil
> whales. The primary thrust of this museum is the advancement
> evolutionary doctrine. Is this discussion group still ongoing ? If so
> I would like to participate. Thanks,

This group is still ongoing, but the volume of posts has dropped way down
over the last few months. I don't know if a lot of people unsubscribed,
or if everyone is still subscribed but too busy doing other things.

An informative essay on transitional fossils, written by a Christian, is:
http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/resources/Miller.html
It briefly mentions whale transitional fossils and gives three recent
references:

- - --Berta, A., 1994, What is a whale?: Science, vol. 263, p. 180-1.
- - --Gingerich, P.D., Raza, S.M., Arif, M., Anwar, M., and Zhou, X., 1994,
New whale from the Eocene of Pakistan and the origin of cetacean swimming:
Nature, vol. 368, p. 844-7
- - --Thewissen, J.G.M., Hussain, S.T., and Arif, M., 1994, Fossil evidence
for the origin of aquatic locomotion in archaeocete whales: Science, vol.
263, p. 210-2.

(Note, _Nature_ and _Science_ might have more recent articles about
the whale fossil record since 1994,
and I'm sure the journals specialized in paleontology have more
information, but I don't know of any off-hand. A search in reader's guide
to periodicals should find some articles.)

I'm curious about what you said, "The primary thrust of this museum is the
advancement evolutionary doctrine."

Does the museum:
1) Primarily try to teach the public what scientists currently believe
about the timing and order in which various lifeforms first appeared in
the fossil record, along with the current best theories about lineages and
common ancestors.
2) Primarily try to convince the public that common ancestry and descent-
by-modification via natural mechanisms is an adequate and true
scientific description of biological history on earth.
3) Primiarly try to convince the public that evolution is true, and
therefore, there is no Creator.

Those are three different things. The first one is informing the public
about what most scientists currently believe about the fossil record and
the evidence upon which they base those beliefs. That's appropriate for a
public museum. The second one is trying to convince the public that the
scientists have got their history correct. That's problematic; I can see
how a museum doing the first might slip into the second without even
thinking about it. A public museum should definitely not be doing the
third. If some public displays, or staff members while "on the job," are
doing some of #3, that needs to be discussed and, if necessary,
confronted.

Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1999 18:03:12 -0700
From: "Magnus Murphy" <mmurphy@cintek.com>
Subject: Consensus?? Human birth

- - ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE4F9F.76CD1A20
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am new to this discussion group and began by reading some of the =
archived messages dating as far back as 1995. Of course nobody has =
enough time to read everything so I wonder if there is some way I can =
find out if any consensus has been reached on anything that has been =
discussed.

I got the impression that changing somebody's preconceived =
opinions/beliefs is an impossible task but it would be very informative =
to newcomers like myself if there could be some discussion of what =
consensus has been achieved in the last few years.

I am an OB/GYN practising in Canada (trained in South Africa) and is =
particularly interested in evolution as relating to the erect body =
position of humans and the effect of that on the skeleton (especially =
the pelvis) and therefore directly on the birth process. Does the erect =
position and the reasons for that in the evolutionary sense (ability to =
run faster for instance) lead to the necessity of a smaller, narrower =
pelvis?

In the reproductive sense there is a direct competition between the =
mother, who will be better off if the baby is small, and the fetus, who =
will be better off if born big (without damage of course). The =
mechanical problems of delivering a big baby without excessive damage to =
mother and baby and the interplay of this competition, is fascinating. =
There are some indications that pregnant woman can regulate the size of =
the baby, possibly by restricting the nutrients delivered by the =
uterine/placental perfusion. Thus smaller women will have smaller =
babies etc. This holds even when a donor embrio of large parents is =
implanted into a smaller woman. The same has been noted in animals.

Could this be the reason that human babies are so totally undeveloped in =
comparison to some of the other primate species for instance the large =
apes? Longer gestation to provide further development would of =
necessity lead to larger size and thus an impossible mechanical birth =
problem.

Could anyone tell me if other primates have developed the rotational =
birth process without which almost no human birth is possible? Could =
this have been a development in response to the increasing problems from =
increased brainsize and decreasing pelvic size?

Our increasing use of cesarean section for obstructive labour has =
removed nature's way of preventing genes coding for insufficient =
pelvices to be transmitted. The flip side could be that it has also =
removed the previous hindrance to a possible increase in brainsize in =
the human fetus.

I wonder if anyone has information on the pelvic size of Neanderthals, =
who apparently sometimes had bigger or at least equal brain sizes than =
modern humans?

It is my belief that in due time, cesarean birth will become the rule =
rather than the exception. As it is, most human births come at high =
cost to the mother as a result of mechanical problems as mentioned =
above. The prevalence of genital prolapse and incontinence problems in =
parous women is unbelievably high and I truly believe this is one of the =
silent epidemics of our time.

- - ------=_NextPart_000_0022_01BE4F9F.76CD1A20
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I am new to this discussion group =and began by=20reading some of the archived messages dating as far back as 1995. =Of=20course nobody has enough time to read everything so I wonder if there is =some=20way I can find out if any consensus has been reached on anything that =has been=20discussed.

I got the impression that changing =somebody's=20preconceived opinions/beliefs is an impossible task but it would be very =informative to newcomers like myself if there could be some discussion =of what=20consensus has been achieved in the last few years.

I am an OB/GYN practising in Canada =(trained in=20South Africa) and is particularly interested in evolution as relating to =the=20erect body position of humans and the effect of that on the skeleton =(especially=20the pelvis) and therefore directly on the birth process. Does the =erect=20position and the reasons for that in the evolutionary sense (ability to =run=20faster for instance) lead to the necessity of a smaller, narrower=20pelvis?

In the reproductive sense there is a =direct=20competition between the mother, who will be better off if the baby is =small, and=20the fetus, who will be better off if born big (without damage of =course). =20The mechanical problems of delivering a big baby without excessive =damage to=20mother and baby and the interplay of this competition, is =fascinating. =20There are some indications that pregnant woman can regulate the size of =the=20baby, possibly by restricting the nutrients delivered by the =uterine/placental=20perfusion. Thus smaller women will have smaller babies etc. =This=20holds even when a donor embrio of large parents is implanted into a =smaller=20woman. The same has been noted in animals.

Could this be the reason that human babies are so =totally=20undeveloped in comparison to some of the other primate species for =instance the=20large apes? Longer gestation to provide further development would =of=20necessity lead to larger size and thus an impossible mechanical birth=20problem.

Could anyone tell me if other primates have =developed the=20rotational birth process without which almost no human birth is =possible? =20Could this have been a development in response to the increasing =problems from=20increased brainsize and decreasing pelvic size?

Our increasing use of cesarean section for =obstructive labour=20has removed nature's way of preventing genes coding for insufficient =pelvices to=20be transmitted. The flip side could be that it has also removed =the=20previous hindrance to a possible increase in brainsize in the human=20fetus.

I wonder if anyone has information on the pelvic =size of=20Neanderthals, who apparently sometimes had bigger or at least equal =brain sizes=20than modern humans?

It is my belief that in due time, =cesarean birth=20will become the rule rather than the exception. As it is, most =human=20births come at high cost to the mother as a result of mechanical =problems as=20mentioned above. The prevalence of genital prolapse and =incontinence=20problems in parous women is unbelievably high and I truly believe this =is one of=20the silent epidemics of our time.